The Internet Blueprint Wants You To Crowdsource Digital Laws 114
will_edit_for_food writes "Are you fed up with anti-piracy acts that use scorched-earth tactics, like SOPA and PIPA — or secretly negotiated agreements like ACTA? Do you wonder why we the people don't propose our own laws, rather than just react whenever these bills slouch toward Congress to be born? Wouldn't you like a place where you and a few like-minded amateur lawmakers could get together and do it right? Public Knowledge has debuted the Internet Blueprint, a site for those technologically and politically inclined to gather ideas...and eventually submit them to sympathetic politicians."
Re:Because more laws (Score:5, Insightful)
What About the Money? (Score:5, Insightful)
uhm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Those bills aren't slouching through Congress to be born. They're being bought by one-percenters who think buying congresscritters is cheaper, easier, and more profitable than coming up with a business model that works in the Internet Age.
(Heh, my .sig is actually relevant to the post.)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is rather disturbing. (Score:5, Insightful)
So the solution to political corruption is a slew of undifferentiated amateur lawmakers churning out legislation even faster than the public can keep up with?
This smells hideously false flag.
We had a functional system. We need to restore it by reasserting it and enforcing it, not by Monsanto-ing up more bizarre legislation faster than we can track it. One of the underlying problems has always been a decreasing public understanding of the legal models in play. Without resolving that, this approach will only exacerbate it. What publisher solicits books from writers who are illiterate?
Crowdsourced = Majority rule (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll provide gay marriage as a non-digital example. Majority rule would determine gay marriage to be illegal, based on the most recent surveys. That does not protect the rights of the minority of people prefer to enter into a same-sex marriage.
Here is an easier example: Joe from Juniper bought and owns 100 acres of land. The other 9 residents of Juniper have only 1/2 acre of land each. A crowdsourced bill may be introduced requiring Joe to divide his land evenly among the other residents. It is likely everyone except Joe will vote up the up. While the bill may accurately express the desires of the majority of Juniper residents, a law requiring Joe to surrender his land would be wrong.
Re:Crowdsourced = Majority rule (Score:4, Insightful)
it's a better system than one we currently have, where the vast minority rule.
Major thinking flaw (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a major flaw in the thought framework underlying the entire initiative - which is, BTW, excellent and a nice illustration of the principle "if you can't beat 'em, embrace 'em" - IMHO: the idea is totally US-centric, In the minds of the initiators, law-making = US law.making = US Congress. As a European I vehemently protest. So would most Asians, who form by far the most numerous subset of internet users.
QFD.
Re:Because more laws (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this for a law. All persons seeking election to public office should be independently tested and the test results audited and presented to the public. tests to check knowledge, intelligence, health and psychological fitness (also to include checks for psychopathy and narcissism).
In many instance people have to undergo the tests for employment including government employment, why shouldn't politicians be subject to these tests prior to running for office.
I don't wonder. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you wonder why we the people don't propose our own laws, rather than just react whenever these bills slouch toward Congress to be born?
No, I DO NOT wonder why people don't do this. How can you ensure a democracy if everyone participating is anonymous? How can you ensure that one person has exactly one vote? How do you prevent criminals from influencing policy by voting hundreds of times for their own laws?
As it is now, wealthy people can make any laws they want, but it still requires the complicated process of bribing elected law makers with high-paying consulting jobs. If you take money out of the equation, anyone who figures out how to game your voting system will easily pass any laws they want by simply creating a huge number of sock-puppet voters.
I hate how money, rather than common sense and compromise, has more influence over law, but a digital democracy simply won't work unless you can uniquely identify voters with sensitive personal data which no one wants (nor should they have to) provide to anyone anyway.